Like Tolkien, Rowling depicts a variety of magical species in addition to human wizards. Tolkien unabashedly racialized his magical beings; Tall, pale Elves spoke a beautiful Latinate tongue; little Hobbits were simple, fun-loving, loyal folk; and dark-skinned "southern" human tribes sided in battle with orcs, savage creatures no better than animals.I've read a lot of modernist critiques of Tolkien (David Brin's is probably the best), but this is a bit silly. I could poke holes in Goldstein's argument, and maybe I just will:
* Orcs in Tolkien's universe are closely related to elves, and are in fact created from elves.
* Many of Tolkien's elves have dark skin, and elf skin tone does not correlate with good/evil (so-called "dark elves" just wear dark armor and live underground, and thus are probably pale-skinned).
* Neither elves nor pale-skinned humans are uniformly good. Both are typically in a state of civil war; at one point in the history, Aragorn's presumably Caucasian ancestors are Sauron's main servants and actually invade heaven, causing worldwide destruction.
* Though a group of swarthy southern humans does side with Sauron, a group of black-skinned knights sides with the good guys.
* Goldstein says elves are supposed to be Latinate; since when are Italian- or Spanish-speaking people supposed to be tall and pale?
* What diminutive human race is stereotyped as being "simple, fun-loving, loyal folk"? Are Hobbits the Kalahari Bushmen? (I always assumed the Hobbits were modeled after my own father, especially the part about the large hairy feet...)
The truth is that Tolkien's "races" are not human variants, but alien species, more similar to the Vulcans or Klingons in Star Trek than to modern-day racial tropes. In fantasy, it's fun to have some people who are similar enough to humans to interact with us, but different enough to be weird and neat (and that includes David Brin's various aliens, by the way). How many extra legs should fantasy authors be required to give their aliens in order to avoid accusations of racism? This "critique" of Tolkien is ridiculous.
A more subtle, and probably accurate, critique is that Tolkien places too much emphasis on genetic determinism. Goldstein write about "the fantasy tradition of ascribing high-born histories to even the most humble heroes...[such as] Aragorn in J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings." This is right, to a certain extent; Aragorn is destined for rulership and heroism because he is the descendant of ancient kings and heroes.
But the story is not so simple; as I mentioned before, Aragorn's ancestors, the Numenorean kings, were not good guys at all, but more like super-powered genocidal orcs on meth. Aragorn's bloodline makes him a king but not necessarily a good one; that's why he's initially rejected by his subjects, and forced to prove his worth in war. Also, it's worth noting that none of the main Hobbit protagonists - who ultimately win the war where human armies fail - has any sort of noble blood coursing through their veins, nor is any such lineage ever discovered.
But yes, medievalist fantasy often employs the canard of genetic determinism. That's because, if we want to read a book and feel like we're being transported back to some antiquated pre-technological age, it helps to put back in some antiquated ideas as well. Demanding that the nations of Middle Earth reject aristocracy is eminently reasonable - but so is the suggestion that they mow down Sauron's armies with machine guns instead of hacking at them with swords.
I have no problem with critiquing the political subtexts of fantasy tales. But criticizing the idea of fantasy as we know it is a far more dubious proposition. If we force fantasy to adhere to all the sociopolitical rules of modern society, we might as well just read the news instead.
P.S. - Alternate titles for this post included:
"Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony",
"You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you",
"Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers", and
"Come and see the violence inherent in the system!"
0 comments:
Post a Comment